Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description confirms 'Add collateral' as a mutation but does not add further behavioral details such as side effects, signing requirements, or whether the operation is atomic. The SAP context implies the need for user signing, but this is not explicit. No contradiction with annotations. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description could be more informative.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core purpose is stated concisely in the first sentence. However, the subsequent SAP MCP context block is lengthy and repeats content found in the input schema description. While front-loaded, the redundant boilerplate reduces conciseness. Could be trimmed without loss of necessary information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of a financial tool that modifies on-chain state, the description lacks completeness. It does not specify what the output is (despite an output schema existing), nor does it explain the full transactional flow (e.g., whether a signature is required, how to handle fees). The SAP context hints at payment routing but is not integrated with the tool's behavior. The description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the consequences of invoking this tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage with clear descriptions for each parameter: amount ('Raw token amount (smallest unit)'), wallet and positionKey ('Solana public key (base58)'). The tool description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema provides. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description begins with a clear and specific statement: 'Add collateral to an existing Adrena position.' This quickly conveys the verb (add), resource (collateral), and context (existing position). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like adrena_openPosition (creates new) and adrena_removeCollateral (removes).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Key usage aspects are missing: prerequisites (e.g., the position must already exist), when not to use (e.g., when you need to remove collateral), or any context of atIONs to consider before invoking. The lengthy SAP MCP context discusses infrastructure but not usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.